>If the human is part of the system, then it would use its observe() method. :)


This is where I'm getting confused. If we have a class for electron, proton, neutron, and photon, we can create a model of particle physics demonstrating the electromagnetic interaction (we're ignoring the nuclear forces for simplicity).


If we create a bunch of particles:

e1 = create("electron")
e2 = create("electron")
e3 = create("electron")
e4 = create("electron")

p1 = create("proton")
p2 = create("proton")
p3 = create("proton")
p4 = create("proton")

l1 = create("photon")
l2 = create("photon")
l3 = create("photon")
l4 = create("photon")

n1 = create("neutron")
n2 = create("neutron")
n3 = create("neutron")
n4 = create("neutron")

Then it seems to me we can use those particles to create things out of matter. We can create a light bulb, a toaster, a car, or even a computer with enough of these simulated particles.


If we can create a computer, that means we could probably create a human brain, because it is just a computer.

My question is, if we construct the human not out of an observer class, not as a single particle, but as a bunch of particles not bound together by anything besides the physical forces, then there is no object reference to the human observer anywhere.

There's not even a class definition for it.


So how would the human call an Observe() method? Or how would a human even read the properties of a particle object?

I don't think it would.




>However, it would be better if at this point you could define *observation*? Is it acknowledging an event?

At this point, let's just say its a measurement. Somehow, the observer needs to produce a measurement.




>And if so, how does the information travel from the place of the event to the place of the observer?

In the real world it travels by light, which is really an electromagnetic wave, which is really just photons.

So the photon particle is how our observer receives information.